[PASSED] Wartime Looting and Pillage

[Federation Of The Donut]

Just kidding,calm thyselves.

[Defwa]

Just kidding,calm thyselves.

OOC: seen here, brilliantly missing the point...

[Separatist Peoples]

Just kidding,calm thyselves.

OOC: as somebody actively trying to seek constructive criticism on this proposal, I can honestly say that this level of "kidding" actively detracts from the drafting process. Contribute, even minimally, or stay silent, please.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Updates the clauses dealing with command responsibility and the manifest illegality of these actions. What think ye, merry resting ambassadors of the General Assembly?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I think it's too specific. It would be best to simply state that such an order is a war crime, manifestly illegal, and subject to command responsibility, but leave the specifics of who to prosecute out. After all, we've just had a ruling that prosecution is handled by magic invisible clauses anyway, so it's reasonable to assume the magic invisible words resemble something reasonable.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I think it's too specific. It would be best to simply state that such an order is a war crime, manifestly illegal, and subject to command responsibility, but leave the specifics of who to prosecute out. After all, we've just had a ruling that prosecution is handled by magic invisible clauses anyway, so it's reasonable to assume the magic invisible words resemble something reasonable.

OOC: is this RE: the officer bits? I'm pretty sure I cut that not long ago. There was another edit since the last bump that I didn't announce due to forum inactivity. Unless I didn't change that bit? I'll have to check when I have access to the Master Draft, where I definitely made edits.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I think it's too specific. It would be best to simply state that such an order is a war crime, manifestly illegal, and subject to command responsibility, but leave the specifics of who to prosecute out. After all, we've just had a ruling that prosecution is handled by magic invisible clauses anyway, so it's reasonable to assume the magic invisible words resemble something reasonable.

OOC: is this RE: the officer bits? I'm pretty sure I cut that not long ago. There was another edit since the last bump that I didn't announce due to forum inactivity. Unless I didn't change that bit? I'll have to check when I have access to the Master Draft, where I definitely made edits.

Right, sorry, it's been edited since I last read and I hadn't noticed that. I like the current wording. Apologies.

[Imperium Anglorum]

'Your Excellency, I support your proposal, as the condition of displaced peoples in war zones is of great importance to our state. There are just a few issues which the Foreign Office has reservations upon'.

1. Wartime looting shall be defined as the forceful seizure or theft of non-essential or humanitarian relief supplies by a military entity from civilian non-combatants during a time of armed conflict.

2. Wartime looting shall be determined by the nature of the goods being seized; seizure of essential supplies, such as food, water, or medical supplies not distributed as humanitarian aid, and material essential for immediate military operations, shall not be considered wartime looting, provided the owners are left sufficient supplies for their own needs.

3. Essential supplies seized from non-government entities by military forces shall be replaced or compensated for as quickly as possible by the nation responsible for the seizure.

'Your Excellency, it relates to the sections projected on the screen above us. The Foreign Office has concluded that a double declaration of what constitutes 'wartime looting' should be avoided to keep one from being rendered unenforcable. The Foreign Office has also concluded that Article I, Sections 3 through 5 are effectively unenforcable in that the prevention of seizure of cultural artefacts is effectively impossible and that recompense for these "priceless" artefacts is impossible as well'.

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

'The Foreign Office has also concluded that the definition of "wartime pillage" can here be misconstrued as including the use of strategic bombing. Most importantly, the Foreign Office is concerned that if this bill passes, a country could simply hire civilian contractors for military production and consider the bombing of their factories as a war crime, as "the strictest sense" is rather strict'.

[EDIT: corrected grammar error]
[EDIT 2: added these EDIT tags]

[Separatist Peoples]

'Your Excellency, I support your proposal, as the condition of displaced peoples in war zones is of great importance to our state. There are just a few issues which the Foreign Office has reservations upon'.

1. Wartime looting shall be defined as the forceful seizure or theft of non-essential or humanitarian relief supplies by a military entity from civilian non-combatants during a time of armed conflict.

2. Wartime looting shall be determined by the nature of the goods being seized; seizure of essential supplies, such as food, water, or medical supplies not distributed as humanitarian aid, and material essential for immediate military operations, shall not be considered wartime looting, provided the owners are left sufficient supplies for their own needs.

3. Essential supplies seized from non-government entities by military forces shall be replaced or compensated for as quickly as possible by the nation responsible for the seizure.

'Your Excellency, it relates to the sections projected on the screen above us. The Foreign Office has concluded that a double declaration of what constitutes 'wartime looting' should be avoided to keep one from being rendered unenforcable. The Foreign Office has also concluded that Article I, Sections 3 through 5 are effectively unenforcable in that the prevention of seizure of cultural artefacts is effectively impossible and that recompense for these "priceless" artefacts is impossible as well'.

"Ambassador, the clause does not redefine pillaging. It clarifies. Its a common practice. I fail to see how preventing the theft of cultural treasures is unenforceable. It is as enforceable as any other form of theft prevention law. In those instances where individuals violate the law, prosecution should follow, to deter future events. This is designed to prevent systematic abuse by states. I fail to see how this is a problem."

'The Foreign Office has also concluded that the definition of "wartime pillage" can here be misconstrued as including the use of strategic bombing. Most importantly, the Foreign Office is concerned that if this bill passes, a country could simply hire civilian contractors for military production and consider the bombing of their factories as a war crime, as "the strictest sense" is rather strict'.

"Indeed, using strategic bombing in instances where less destructive options are a possibility would be pillaging. That is intentional. If the bombing of civilian manufacturing is made necessary by strategic needs in the most strict definition of military necessity, i.e. the objective is unachievable by any other means, it is not pillaging. There is gray area intentionally, as to do otherwise would be tantamount to banning war. This is a basic tenant of strategy, which this law takes into account. I struggle to see the problem, ambassador."

[Confederate Ramenia]

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

"Due to the existence of warrior tribes and warrior peoples without any distinction between civilians and military, it is necessary that this definition be refined to only include those civilians and property currently engaged in warfare or necessary to war as 'fair game' for intentional violence."

[Separatist Peoples]

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

"Due to the existence of warrior tribes and warrior peoples without any distinction between civilians and military, it is necessary that this definition be refined to only include those civilians and property currently engaged in warfare or necessary to war as 'fair game' for intentional violence."

"If the civilians of an enemy tribe partake in fighting, then other clauses allow your warriors to respond with respective force, ambassador. If they are fighting as a part of a "state" (and I do use the term "state" loosely when discussing tribes in this manner), then they are treated as combatants, and are subject to the same rules of POWs and surrendering troops, as per extant WA law. Either way, carte blanche violence against anybody, civilian or otherwise, will likely be illegal anyways, as per other, extant WA law."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Ambassador, the clause does not redefine pillaging. It clarifies. Its a common practice. I fail to see how preventing the theft of cultural treasures is unenforceable. It is as enforceable as any other form of theft prevention law. In those instances where individuals violate the law, prosecution should follow, to deter future events. This is designed to prevent systematic abuse by states. I fail to see how this is a problem."

Indeed, using strategic bombing in instances where less destructive options are a possibility would be pillaging. That is intentional. If the bombing of civilian manufacturing is made necessary by strategic needs in the most strict definition of military necessity, i.e. the objective is unachievable by any other means, it is not pillaging."

'Your excellency, I must concede that cultural treasures can be stolen, but I do not believe that adequate compensation can be given to the affected parties, which makes it unenforceable. Furthermore, I do not believe that prosecution can be done fairly, as those on the winning side cannot be adequately prosecuted'.

'Regarding strategic necessity, it is impossible for military planners to evaluate the objective's achievability with a certain method. Furthermore, this effectively states that military necessity cannot be done. In situations of total war, it is required that all resources be dedicated to the cause. As an assembly of states, part of our responsibility is to protect the ability of states and their continued sovereignty. In that, the destruction of civilian properties and the pursuit of victory and the preservation of a nation's people cannot be so constrained. There are never any so-called "less destructive options", as the pursuit of victory cannot simply be ignored. Collateral damage is an unavoidable element of warfare, and I feel that it is preposterous to legislate against it'.

[Separatist Peoples]

'Your excellency, I must concede that cultural treasures can be stolen, but I do not believe that adequate compensation can be given to the affected parties, which makes it unenforceable. Furthermore, I do not believe that prosecution can be done fairly, as those on the winning side cannot be adequately prosecuted'.

"Compensation does not have to be monetary. It can be through political concessions and plans or prosecution of those who steal or destroy the artefact, possibly through extradition. Besides, ambassador, what would the alternative be? Making no laws respecting thievery of cultural artefacts at all, leaving it de facto and de jure legal on an international level? What an awful idea."

'Regarding strategic necessity, it is impossible for military planners to evaluate the objective's achievability with a certain method. Furthermore, this effectively states that military necessity cannot be done. In situations of total war, it is required that all resources be dedicated to the cause. As an assembly of states, part of our responsibility is to protect the ability of states and their continued sovereignty. In that, the destruction of civilian properties and the pursuit of victory and the preservation of a nation's people cannot be so constrained. There are never any so-called "less destructive options", as the pursuit of victory cannot simply be ignored. Collateral damage is an unavoidable element of warfare, and I feel that it is preposterous to legislate against it'.

"Total war is not ever total. There are always industries that must support civilians, as it is civilians who support the military. Ipso facto, there are industries that need not be strategically carpet bombed, as they do not directly affect the military objectives. Besides, there are other elements of civilian property unaffected by total war industry. Houses and homes. Personal jewelry. Clothing. Personal electronics. Literally any good that a civilian might own for personal use. There is no justification that these objects, when in the possession of civilians, are contributing to total war, so there is, in fact, plenty of property to be protected in a total war by this resolution. I invite the ambassador to open his eyes at the reality of war, and not remain focused on the technical definitions from out of a field manual."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Besides, there are other elements of civilian property unaffected by total war industry. Houses and homes. Personal jewelry. Clothing. Personal electronics. Literally any good that a civilian might own for personal use. There is no justification that these objects, when in the possession of civilians, are contributing to total war, so there is, in fact, plenty of property to be protected in a total war by this resolution

'Sir, all of these aid and abet the enemy in a conflict. Houses and homes are used to maintain morale. Personal jewellery can be converted into gold, silver, platinum, which can be used in electronic production. Clothing maintains morale. Personal electronics are used to maintain morale. Goods which civilians use ... maintain morale. There is clear justification in that the nature of these possessions and their deprivation contribute to a nation's unwillingness to surrender and to end conflict, which leads to the conclusion that it would, by virtue of its existence, prevent the ultimate military objective of victory from being reached'.

Making no laws respecting thievery of cultural artefacts at all, leaving it de facto and de jure legal on an international level? What an awful idea.

'Your Excellency, let us say that we make it illegal. How so are nations going to be punished? Extraditions? Victors will not give up their commanders, all but heroes in their public's eye. Losers will be forced to extradite by the victors. Property forfeiture? Who values the property? Cultural properties, by virtue of being priceless, cannot be quantified into a punishment. Sir, the lack of quantification for enforcement makes the clause unenforceable. In the same way the American constitution has clauses which are unenforceable, e.g. the clause guaranteeing republican forms of government for the states, there is no way to enforce the provision without clear definitions for that enforcement'.

'Then again, we could always have the victors of a conflict try, convict, and punish their enemies. Of course, qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers themselves? Nobody? Perfect. "What an awful idea"'.

[Defwa]

(the following is presented by interim ambassador Will Lev)
I've never heard of a nation refusing to surrender because they had smart phones. You're operating on a ridiculous premise for pretty much your entire argument.

Nations will bleeping compensate for their crimes one way or the other. Enforceability is not a bleeping issue because members literally have to comply. Quantification is gnome operated for perfect neutrality. Whether or not they view their hash brown theives as heroes, something must and bleeping will be done to make up for it.
You seem to be confused as to how this organization functions.

EDIT: for the only character trait I could think of on short notice

[Separatist Peoples]

'Sir, all of these aid and abet the enemy in a conflict. Houses and homes are used to maintain morale. Personal jewellery can be converted into gold, silver, platinum, which can be used in electronic production. Clothing maintains morale. Personal electronics are used to maintain morale. Goods which civilians use ... maintain morale. There is clear justification in that the nature of these possessions and their deprivation contribute to a nation's unwillingness to surrender and to end conflict, which leads to the conclusion that it would, by virtue of its existence, prevent the ultimate military objective of victory from being reached'.

"If the invaded nation has confiscated those items, it wouldn't be pillaging, now would it? Your argument would hold up in a court of law about as well as a sieve holds water, and is a genuine waste of time to consider. If you could focus on legitimate claims, then I'll happily consider them."


'

Your Excellency, let us say that we make it illegal. How so are nations going to be punished? Extraditions? Victors will not give up their commanders, all but heroes in their public's eye. Losers will be forced to extradite by the victors. Property forfeiture? Who values the property? Cultural properties, by virtue of being priceless, cannot be quantified into a punishment. Sir, the lack of quantification for enforcement makes the clause unenforceable. In the same way the American constitution has clauses which are unenforceable, e.g. the clause guaranteeing republican forms of government for the states, there is no way to enforce the provision without clear definitions for that enforcement'.

'Then again, we could always have the victors of a conflict try, convict, and punish their enemies. Of course, qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers themselves? Nobody? Perfect. "What an awful idea"'.

[/quote]

"Your question touches on a larger issue that only exists because of the repeal of the ICC, Ambassador. I really wish I could adequately address that concern with this, but, in the absence of a superior international authority, the best we can do is expect member states to obey their own laws. Which this will force them to codify. I have high hopes that the ICC will be replaced, but the core issue you are focusing on cannot be addressed by this law."

[Imperium Anglorum]

You're operating on a ridiculous premise for pretty much your entire argument [...] Quantification is gnome operated for perfect neutrality

Immediately after the speeches of the two previous esteemed colleagues, Ambassador Parsons is joined by his deputy, Deputy Ambassador Cadogan, who interjects from his chair, 'The latter is settled then, a committee of impartial judges will determine the damages. Regarding the former, Ambassador Lev, it is clear that a lack of material needs can lead to surrender. Sieges, for example, are direct manifestations of such deprivation. What is a military doing when it starves them out, removes their water supply, prevents them from gathering the material needs for manufacturing, destroying civilian morale? It is attempting to extradite the forcing of surrender'. The Deputy Ambassador then took a drink from the glass on his desk and adjusted his tie while unbuttoning his jacket.

OOC: Basically, I'm saying that there should not be a difference of law between bombing a water pumping facility to kill the mains pressure and bombing a manufacturing plant. This bill says there is. If one pursues an object of forcing an enemy to surrender, there is no difference, and creating one simply extends wars and makes them more deadly for both sides.

Standing up, Cadogan said, 'That raises a few questions, Ambassador Lev. Why must nations make Propaganda Ministries? Why do cities surrender? The answer is because countries are ruled by their civilians and the manipulation of public opinion, by both sides, is vital to the waging of modern warfare. This bill effectively bans the waging of total war. Ambassador, we must recognise that modern warfare is no gentleman's affair. It is a desperate, annihilating struggle, as study of any major conflict has shown. Naturally, fighting a war with collateral damage is not 'strictly military necessity', is it? One could always fight that war in a gentlemanly fashion. But then, you would have the first year of the First World War, with millions of men dying for no reason whatsoever, thrown at the enemy in charges, charges which general officers launched with the expectation that courage would defeat machine guns'. The Deputy Ambassador picked up a sheet of paper, and proceeded, 'Ambassador Bell made a comment on the record earlier today in that,'

If the invaded nation has confiscated those items, it wouldn't be pillaging, now would it? Your argument would hold up in a court of law about as well as a sieve holds water, and is a genuine waste of time to consider

Ambassador Cadogan continued, 'In the second sentence, Ambassador Bell, you have not done anything but dismissed our argument without argumentation. The mere possession of these items by civilians improves morale, which prevents nations from reaching their military objective of surrender. But your bill says 'an absolute necessity by military action', which the bombing of civilian targets is not. Flattening Dresden, Munich, and other German cities as done by British and American bomber squadrons in the Second World War is not 'an absolute necessity', in that it was not absolutely vital for victory — which could have been secured by a gentlemanly war, with significantly more casualties on both sides (OOC: another four million deaths and an extended timeframe for conflict? No problem. The soldiers must be pleased about this one)'.

OOC: Absolute military necessity is an extremely small field. Confining war-making to that is, I feel, too restrictive.

the best we can do is expect member states to obey their own laws

Cadogan again: 'So, Ambassador Bell, your proposal does absolutely nothing if a country refuses to enforce it? (or enforces it with slaps on the wrist?) In the spirit of liberalism, I do not feel that it is the prerogative of this august Assembly to regulate the happenings of war, as long as it is in the pursuit of a military objective. And here, I stress that whilst you say 'an absolute necessity by military action', I say 'a military objective"'.

Interjecting, Ambassador Parsons said, '"Ambassador, the only thing we are concerned about is the inclusion of the word "absolute" in your bill'.

[EDIT: Fixed grammar error]

[Defwa]

You're operating on a ridiculous premise for pretty much your entire argument [...] Quantification is gnome operated for perfect neutrality

Immediately after the speeches of the two previous esteemed colleagues, Ambassador Parsons is joined by his deputy, Deputy Ambassador Cadogan, who interjects from his chair, 'The latter is settled then, a committee of impartial judges will determine the damages. Regarding the former, Ambassador Lev, it is clear that a lack of material needs can lead to surrender. Sieges, for example, are direct manifestations of such deprivation. What is a military doing when it starves them out, removes their water supply, prevents them from gathering the material needs for manufacturing, destroying civilian morale? It is attempting to extradite the forcing of surrender'. The Deputy Ambassador then took a drink from the glass on his desk and adjusted his tie while unbuttoning his jacket.

OOC: Basically, I'm saying that there should not be a difference of law between bombing a water pumping facility to kill the mains pressure and bombing a manufacturing plant. This bill says there is. If one pursues an object of forcing an enemy to surrender, there is no difference, and creating one simply extends wars and makes them more deadly for both sides.

Standing up, Cadogan said, 'That raises a few questions, Ambassador Lev. Why must nations make Propaganda Ministries? Why do cities surrender? The answer is because countries are ruled by their civilians and the manipulation of public opinion, by both sides, is vital to the waging of modern warfare. This bill effectively bans the waging of total war. Ambassador, we must recognise that modern warfare is no gentleman's affair. It is a desperate, annihilating struggle, as study of any major conflict has shown. Naturally, fighting a war with collateral damage is not 'strictly military necessity', is it? One could always fight that war in a gentlemanly fashion. But then, you would have the first year of the First World War, with millions of men dying for no reason whatsoever, thrown at the enemy in charges, charges which general officers launched with the expectation that courage would defeat machine guns'. The Deputy Ambassador picked up a sheet of paper, and proceeded, 'Ambassador Bell made a comment on the record earlier today in that,'

To begin, I have absolutely no idea to which of the dozens or bleeping hundreds of Germanies and World Wars you're referring to. It makes for a poor example.

For clarity, I would like to point out that this resolution does not in any fashion touch on depriving citizens of a resource visavis bombing a water source, but only direct theft. And sure, I'll acknowledge that bleeping starving, dehydrating, and depriving innocent civilians sure makes war a lot easier but that doesn't make it right. Warfare calls for some parent bleeping decorum. Otherwise you're just a murderous sick bleep.
Propaganda is one thing, but you're bleeping literally describing mass bleeping torture.

[Normlpeople]

Clover smiled at Ambassador Bell. "This is really taking shape" she said. "I would propose an amendment to the first section regarding artistic and cultural treasures, perhaps adding a section authorizing WATCH as an arbitrator in the event of a conflict of opinion for this section (be it the status of the item as such a treasure, or the value of the damages)? I would also like to see compensation for seized assets be payable at the conflicts end as opposed to 'as quickly as possible', however, that is a minor point.

As to the section regarding pillaging, you may have issues with extreme capitalist nations with no publicly owned assets, or so called peoples nations that claim everything is owned by the people, however, I do believe that the delegation from Imperium Anglorum may have misunderstood the draft here...

All and all, I can see myself supporting it."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Warfare calls for some parent bleeping decorum. Otherwise you're just a murderous sick bleep. ... Propaganda is one thing, but you're bleeping literally describing mass bleeping torture.

OOC: What are the historical examples I harken back to?

• WWI: Germany, bombing of French cities, London, absolute destruction of Belgium; British blockade of Germany; German U-boat blockade of Britain
• WWII: Allied flattening of German and Japanese cities (Dresden, Munich, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki); German Blitz on England
• Sieges: prevalent throughout the mediaeval, renaissance, and early modern eras and directed towards entire cities

All of these are attempts to force a surrender by targeting civilian populations.

Warfare is by its nature, lacking decorum, as Orwell says about modern warfare in the book 1984, modern war is a 'desperate, annihilating struggle'. You seem to believe that warfare can be made more peaceful simply by legislating it. While I respect the idealism, and I counter by saying that I feel that legislation of war is counterproductive. We have to be able to reduce the length of conflict to reduce the number of people killed or injured. To reduce the length of conflicts, surrenders must be forced as soon as possible. To force a surrender, one must do two things: (1) destroy the military and (2) demoralise the civilian population.

Is war repugnant? Yes. Is war an offence to our posh modern sensibilities? Yes. But I would much rather have a short intense war than a long drawn out meat grinder. Strategic bombing of military and civilian populations forces wars to end faster than they would otherwise. You even accept this point. I contend that shorter wars must be our objective, not longer ones. Shorter wars have less casualties, upon which we can all agree, is a good thing.

You all have a moral compass which tells you that the bombing/pillaging of civilian populations is immoral. I believe that as well. The issue I see is that military action against civilian populations shortens and reduces the effect of conflicts. From a purely logical perspective, this sort of military action, in the end, reduces total casualties, which I believe is the object we strive for.

Separatist Peoples, the only objections I have boil down to I.1 as well as II.1, II.3, II.4.

For I.1:

Wartime looting shall be defined as the forceful seizure of essential supplies, such as food, water, or medical supplies not distributed as humanitarian aid. Material essential for immediate military operations shall not be considered wartime looting, provided that the owners are left sufficient supplies for their own needs.

For II.1:

Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except when rendered in pursuit of military objectives.

For II.3:

Member states’ military forces are obliged to limit deliberate targeting of civilian property, except where such action is a military necessity, and shall take all possible steps to protect civilian property from destruction in the territory they effectively control.

And removal of II.4.

[Defwa]

OOC: I guess you missed the point of my statement. RL references have literally no meaning here. There are hundreds of countries named after those ones you listed. Some had alternate endings to WW2, some never fought a war, some are in the infinite space future and can barely remember.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I'm not making those changes, IA. It would gut this. The WA works differently then Real Life. Noncompliance doesn't work the same way as you're insinuating, as it's canon that members' laws change when laws are passed. While noncompliance is possible, it's not considered done on a systemic level generally, since otherwise the IC laws would be pointless. Your concerns are almost entirely grounded in nonissues.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I guess you missed the point of my statement. RL references have literally no meaning here. There are hundreds of countries named after those ones you listed. Some had alternate endings to WW2, some never fought a war, some are in the infinite space future and can barely remember.

OOC: While not official, I would like to draw on this opinion on the usage of real world examples:

Often, too, data or facts from the real world are drawn on as evidence or the basis for argument. While it is generally acceptable to, ... reference real-world incidents or scientific studies

——————————

Noncompliance doesn't work the same way as you're insinuating, as it's canon that members' laws change when laws are passed. While noncompliance is possible, it's not considered done on a systemic level generally, since otherwise the IC laws would be pointless.

"If non-compliance worked the way it works in real life, as you are insinuating that this delegation believes, then we would have absolutely no objection to the bill, as we would simply not enforce it. It is the enforcement of this bill, should it pass, which this delegation has issue with"

"We all want to reduce the destruction of war. We are simply going at it with different perspectives. I am objecting because your bill will increase the death tolls caused by wars and prevent the quick conclusion of conflicts, meaning more civilian casualties"

[EDIT: Added OOC tag]

[Gruenberg]

OOC: I guess you missed the point of my statement. RL references have literally no meaning here. There are hundreds of countries named after those ones you listed. Some had alternate endings to WW2, some never fought a war, some are in the infinite space future and can barely remember.

OOC: While not official, I would like to draw on this opinion on the usage of real world examples:

Often, too, data or facts from the real world are drawn on as evidence or the basis for argument. While it is generally acceptable to, ... reference real-world incidents or scientific studies

Yes, it really is quite ridiculous to just say that because WWII happened IRL you can't use any examples from it. However, the example you used is set in Europe, which is in an inferior time zone. Try to find an American example, much more superior.

[Separatist Peoples]

Noncompliance doesn't work the same way as you're insinuating, as it's canon that members' laws change when laws are passed. While noncompliance is possible, it's not considered done on a systemic level generally, since otherwise the IC laws would be pointless.

"If non-compliance worked the way it works in real life, as you are insinuating that this delegation believes, then we would have absolutely no objection to the bill, as we would simply not enforce it. It is the enforcement of this bill, should it pass, which this delegation has issue with"

"We all want to reduce the destruction of war. We are simply going at it with different perspectives. I am objecting because your bill will increase the death tolls caused by wars and prevent the quick conclusion of conflicts, meaning more civilian casualties"

[EDIT: Added OOC tag]

"This law includes a clase requiring prosecution of these. When a replacement for the ICC is established, there will be a mechanism to prevent corruption of the system by nations setting up show hearings to circumvent justice towards their own. This bill literally cannot fix that. That is outside the scope, and requires an entirely different law. There is no reason that this cannot move forwards until that point, such that, when an ICC replacement is made, the spotty coverage is made whole.

"The belief that less legislation on war allows for faster, cleaner wars is patently ridiculous, as any student of history can see. Even if, somehow, the proof of history were all entirely incorrect, you'd be better of focusing on a repeal of NAPA, Chemical Weapons Convention, the POW accord, Rules of Surrender, the Bioweapons Convention, the Landmine Convention, Blah Blah Blah...because clearly those did nothing to reduce the catastrophic impacts of war, especially on civilians. No, sir."